linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:56:06 -0700
From:	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	"Mike Snitzer" <snitzer@...il.com>,
	"Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	dkegel@...gle.com, "David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Nick Piggin" <npiggin@...e.de>, "Wouter Verhelst" <w@...r.be>,
	"Evgeniy Polyakov" <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF_MEMALLOC)

On Tuesday 18 September 2007 02:58, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:11:25 -0700 Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > I've been using Avi Kivity's patch from some time ago:
> > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/7/26/68
> >
> > Yes.  Ddsnap includes a bit of code almost identical to that, which
> > we wrote independently.  Seems wild and crazy at first blush,
> > doesn't it? But this approach has proved robust in practice, and is
> > to my mind, obviously correct.
>
> I'm so not liking this :-(

Why don't you share your specific concerns?

> Can't we just run the user-space part as mlockall and extend netlink
> to work with PF_MEMALLOC where needed?
>
> I did something like that for iSCSI.

Not sure what you mean by extend netlink.  We do run the user daemons 
under mlockall of course, this is one of the rules I stated earlier for 
daemons running in the block IO path.  The problem is, if this 
userspace daemon allocates even one page, for example in sys_open, it 
can deadlock.  Running the daemon in PF_MEMALLOC mode fixes this 
problem robustly, provided that the necessary audit of memory 
allocation patterns and library dependencies has been done.

I suppose you are worried that the userspace code could unexpectedly 
allocate a large amount of memory and exhaust the entire PF_MEMALLOC 
reserve?  Kernel code could do that too.  This userspace code just 
needs to be checked carefully.  Perhaps we could come up with a kernel 
debugging option to verify that a task does in fact stay within some 
bounded number of page allocs while in PF_MEMALLOC mode.

Regards,

Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/